May 10, 2009

In the New York tabloids, this would be the headline: "The Donald's top flops!" And they wouldn't be targeting Donald Trump's comb-over.

The subject instead is the just-completed spire atop the 92-story Trump International Hotel & Tower, the tallest American skyscraper since the 1974 completion of Sears Tower. You and I are going to be looking at this prominent pinprick for a very long time. Unfortunately, it's a one-star piece of skyline stagecraft, a Kmart accessory for an Hermes suit.

The spire is too skinny, too short, and looks vaguely plastic, like something you'd buy in the toy aisle.

And we have two very famous, very powerful people to blame for it: Mayor Richard Daley, who told Trump to build the spire, and Trump himself, who didn't carry out his assignment with the necessary gusto. The tower's chief designer, Adrian Smith, and his former firm, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, also must share responsibility.

True, it is too early for a wholesale evaluation of this hotel and condominium skyscraper, whose walls of glass and stainless steel can be dazzlingly luminous and whose still-under-construction riverfront plaza promises to be a vibrant public space.

Scaffolding still must be removed from the tower's south face. But the much-anticipated spire, all 227 feet and 8 inches of it, is done and therefore fair game.

The mano a mano story of how it came to be is a Chicago classic: In December 2004, when Trump was in town pitching his new fragrance (called -- what else? -- "Donald Trump"), the mayor and the magnate went face to face in Daley's 5th-floor office in City Hall.

With Trump still redolent of cologne after an appearance at the then- Marshall Field's on State Street, Daley let it be known that he likes spires and that he wanted one on this tower. Mr. "Apprentice" demurred. A subsequent Tribune headline -- "Daley to Trump: You're spired!" -- announced the winner of this power-meets-money matchup.

But the sky-gazing public has not won.

There is an art to skyscraper tops, which is exemplified by the riotous stylized sunbursts atop New York's Chrysler Building and the statue of Ceres, the goddess of grain, that crowns the Chicago Board of Trade Building.

These flourishes exultantly culminate the journey up our urban mountains of steel and stone. They arrest the eye and touch the heart.

What we get atop Trump, however, is something else: the spire as flagpole, not integrated with the skyscraper beneath it.

The problems begin at a distance, when the spire is seen in silhouette. Lacking the necessary height and girth to stand up to the tower's substantial mass, it resembles a toothpick or a cigarette butt.

Why isn't it bigger?

In 2005, Trump toyed with the possibility of a taller and presumably wider spire, but backed off when a survey of his tenants indicated that they did not want to live in the nation's tallest building -- a possible terrorist target.

Cutting the spire's height, he acknowledged at the time, would save him about $1.5 million. But shorter and skinnier is not better. The taller and beefier broadcast antennas atop Sears Tower and the John Hancock Center are far more visually persuasive.

The faults compound as you draw closer and observe the disconnect between the Trump Tower's animated, mirrorlike exterior and the dullness of the spire.

The exterior is wrapped in walls of glass and fins of stainless steel that, at their best, beautifully catch and reflect sunlight.

The glass can turn from blue to white in the late afternoon sun and stop you in your tracks as you watch the reflection of a puffy white cloud amble slowly across it.

Smith had hoped to extend this play of light into the tower's top by wrapping the spire with stainless steel vertical fins.

But the plan was cut in "value engineering," which is developer-ese for trimming parts of a building that are superfluous.

Here, "value engineering" engineered the aesthetic value right out of the spire.

Its three-legged steel trusses are covered in a gray fiberglass that is trying to look metallic but comes off as plastic.

The final fault comes in an elongated drumlike extension of the tower, covered in glass, that serves as a penthouse for window-washing equipment. It sits atop the skyscraper like a hat, failing to interlock with either the tower beneath it or the spire above it.

There are, it should be stressed, some vantage points, such as Millennium Park and the offices of Loop skyscrapers, from which the spire appears more graceful. Here, it seems to step up more gradually and not so abruptly, a result of the skyscraper's ever-shifting profiles.

But these pluses do not compensate for the spire's shortcomings. It is a missed opportunity -- not a proud symbol of Daley's reign, but a cautionary tale against mayoral meddling in architecture and design.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

two thumbs down...you've got to be kidding. That monstrosity is actually finished??? I thought that was the support pole for the "spire" and maybe Donald just ran out of money. You can't even see the thing driving up north on the Dan Ryan at night. The enitre building is a complete abomination and an embarrasment to the Chicago's skyline. Petronas Towers has a spire...or so we're told as that building is "officially" taller than sears tower as a result. But good god, why bother. The building south of Sears Tower was orginally supposed to be taller, but after a different recession, we ended up with one of the most unique night time building tops...that's a worthy comprimise.

If this is the best Trump can do, then let's just
tear the whole mess down and he can rebuild it in new york, It so distracts from the the night-time Chicago skyline.

Daley better not run for office again. between giving his blessing to Macy's and this fiasco, maybe it's time we gift Daley with a one-way ticket to New York. he's not a a leader for the new century.

Let this be a lesson to the next mayor (or other political hot shot) who thinks he's an architect. The tower would look better without a spire. As it is right now, it looks like a building that is missing a few floors because the builders ran out of money after putting up a support pillar. At the very least, the spire should have flared out at the bottom so that it appeared integrated into the building rather than a cheap add-on.

That spire is a good reason why the Council on Tall Buildings and Habitat should rethink the whole "spire is part of the height" concept. The antennas on the Sears Tower and Hancock Center look like they belong there (though the slightly taller HD antennas mar the look slightly). The Trump's spire does not. At least if it were an antenna we'd get stronger TV or radio reception in exchange for the eyesore, but we don't even get that.

Seriously, who gave the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat the authority to come up with useless height measurements?

A building should be measured at the point where it ceases to be, a building! A spire serves no habitation purpose. Under those measures the Sears Tower is still the first or second tallest (completed) skyscraper, and that thing in Dubai is just a giant stick.

I don't know why no one can just come out and set the record straight.

Sorry, but I happen to love the way the Trump Tower looks. i'm in a high rise downtown and the building looks absolutely gorgeous throughout the day as the light changes. Catching the morning sun makes it look silvery blue. At sunset, it is a brilliant opalescent and quite lovely. I have been in the building many times and I think it is fantastic. I just wish it wasn't called TRUMP Tower. Boooo! That ruins everything.

BK: This wasn't a review of the building. It was a review of the spire. I agree with you that the building catches the light wonderfully. I said that in the piece and will get to that again when I review the building as a whole.

I agree with your assessment that the Trump spire is uninspiring. Unfortunately, this is not the first ‘mayoral meddling’ in Chicago architecture resulting in mediocrity, Soldier Field, Children’s Museum, 2016 Olympic buildings…to name a few.

Who, if anyone, does the mayor rely on for architectural design input? It would be in the city’s interest for the mayor to create a local group/committee of experienced architectural professionals (apart from the business interests relating to a given project) to provide another point of view for major projects.

I've seen this building from North,South,East, and West and for my eyes it's not a bad looking building. The spire on top seems to me to be well preportioned to the Tower and the surrounding skyline. Let us not forget this is a ginormous building that projects a feeling of lightness. I think a bigger spire would have blunted that.

I look directly at the Trump building (from bottom to top) from my residence in River North. What bothers me the most about the spire is it is not lit up at night at all, except for a very faint red light at the tip. Sears Tower always looks nice with the differing colors lighting up the antennas (Red for Blackhawks, Blue for the Chicago Police, and last night Pink for mother's day).

It doesn't seem to me to be entirely fair to blame the Mayor for the spire's aesthetics -- or lack of them. If I'm recalling correctly, a certain Chicago Tribune architectural critic agreed with the assessment that the building needed a spire -- a version of which was included in the second (widely approved) iteration of the plans, but then omitted in the next version.

BK: The spire in the renderings merited my circumspect approval. The final result does not. Because Daley ordered Trump to do the spire, he and his minions were obligated to oversee the design and construction of the spire so Trump got it right. Obviously, they failed miserably.

the value-engineering of the spire is quite apparent. i'm not convinced that it's size and proportions are terribly inadequate, but the materiality is disappointing. had the spire been clad with a metallic finish so that it would glimmer in the light along with the rest of the building, the result would have been much more successful.

all in all, a disappointing pinnacle to what otherwise has been a pleasantly surprising addition to our cityscape and skyline. the underwhelming spire is not a deal breaking for me, and i find the comments from some calling for the tower's demolition to be wildly ridiculous, but it's too bad that the donald decided to cheap out on one of the most visible aspects of the whole project. oh well.

Its really a shame that the spire of the tower took a cost cutting hit. Now instead of being a bold architectural statement, its become more a lasting display of our current economic situation. It now objectifies grand dreams that were doomed to go unrealized.

At the very least, though, I wish they would have scaled back to this concept:http://www.emporis.com/images/6/2004/01/239122.jpg
It carries the design of the parking structure up to the top of the tower and creates a great sort of synergy between the way the tower touches the ground and and sky.

In the panorama of the city skyline, this sleight is as insignificant as the spire at issue. I cannot get riled up about it. Nor do I think we should fault a man (Trump) who needed to bring the building online in this economy. Thankfully, this thing doesn't look like the Shangri-La.

"Because Daley ordered Trump to do the spire, he and his minions were obligated to oversee the design and construction of the spire so Trump got it right. Obviously, they failed miserably."

Hold on a second. How, practically, could the Mayor and "his minions" have 'oversee[n] the design and construction of the spire" so that it was done "right"?

Unless the re-designed spire was presenting some kind of public safety question, how could the City have intervened?

More importantly, what kind of ramifications would that kind of right of intervention have on other projects? Some mid-level City "minion" dictating that a crane permit be denied because he didn't agree with the aesthetic of a chosen window color? Or would all aesthetic decisions wind up on the Mayor's desk itself?

Or would you prefer it be yours?

BK: Daley has urban design advisers on the city payroll who are supposed to deal with issues like this. They didn't. They blew it. Case closed.

Our son lives in Wrigleyville, so my wife and I drive in from the west suburbs frequently to see him. Unfortunately, I have to agree......the Trump Tower pales in comparison with the majest of the Sears Tower, the Hancock Building, and even the Aeon Building. Disappointing, as we enjoyed watching it go up and were looking forward to its addition to the most beautiful skyline in the world

BK: The spire in the renderings merited my circumspect approval. The final result does not. Because Daley ordered Trump to do the spire, he and his minions were obligated to oversee the design and construction of the spire so Trump got it right. Obviously, they failed miserably

Me: So there's a "right" and a "wrong" way to top off a building and Blair Kamin gets to decide which is which? Seems a bit arrogant if you ask me.

BK: You call it arrogant. I call it judgment. You get it for 75 cents when you buy your Tribune. Or you get it here for free. Pretty good deal for you, Steve.

On a walk this afternoon I looked closely at the spire--it's fine. The picture accompanying this profile is the basis for the article, I think--from the photo's cropped vantage point it looks small. But it's a fine addition to the skyline, and its latest final wrapping will please the local residents and the tourists.

The spire is at least 200 ft too short for such a tall building. This is most apparent when viewing it from Millennium Park, where the overly tall spire on the old Prudential Building in the foreground mocks it. As such, Trump Tower would look better without it.

A saving grace would be if Trump would allow a tasteful illumination scheme for the spire so it would at least compliment the skyline at night. Of course we're talking about The Donald here, so maybe it's best to leave bad enough alone.

Hold on a minute! BK, where is this column coming from? Sorry, but I need to call your bluff. This spire has been under construction for months, with several previous columns by you on the very subject. Now you are reversing course and ripping on the end result. The design has been there all along, even written about you recently in regards to the gray fiberglass panels and how they would be installed.

It is actually a surprise the spire was added at all, in light of all the lengthy back-and-forth dialogue that has gone into it.

The mayoral staff you referenced is just that - advisory. I have to agree with S Rockwell above. And I think you blatantly sidestepped the questions this commentator posed. "Case closed."? What?Indeed, there was no violation of an ordinance, or public safety hazard here. The only time government can legally regulate is when this is the case - and I'm not talking about Chicago's machine politics, either (side note: I currently work in the public sector for a building department in Missouri, thus speaking from first-hand perspective)

Sounds like a first-rate "c.y.a", BK. As a foremost voice on architectural dialogue, your perspective is important to the public / readers of this newspaper. I hope that you will be more honest in the future, and just come clean and admit that it was an oversight. Like everyone else, journalists are not always perfect.

BK: Daley's voice is just advisory? What planet do you live on, Sparky? The King ordered Trump to build the spire--and Trump had no choice but to go along. So the King's men were obligated to follow through and not let the Donald do the spire on the cheap.

As for my own news stories on the spire that appeared on the blog this year, they were just that--news stories, not commentaries. I made clear all along that I would critique the spire when it was done. And I did just that.

Blair,
The City's Dept. of Planning and Development will review a design for conformance with general planning guidelines but we are not the design police. I was present when the spire was discussed and very little dialogue was given to it's design. It is a functional accessory on top of the building, nothing more. The building stands alone without it--the spire is not part of it's identity.
I can also say that the DPD had a lot of praise for Soldier Field--an almost perfect mix of a building functionally serving the needs of the users and keeping key historic elements of the existing structure. It's too bad that the public doesn't understand what it takes to solve complex architectural problems.

BK: Two comments: 1) It's a complete copout to say "we are not the design police." The city can exercise real power when it wants to. It can certainly nudge deveopers in the right direction through the PUD process. 2) It's too bad that you think that the spire is simply a "functional accessory" on top of the building. That's not why Daley wanted it there. He wanted it to look special and ornamental. He wanted it to culminate the design. If you and the people in DPD didn't get this, you were totally out to lunch. The outcome shows it.

EXACTLY! These 2 versions have some architecture to them. As it is now, the spire is a big disappointment, though not as bad as the toilet plumbing stump on top of 57 East Delaware.

"Its really a shame that the spire of the tower took a cost cutting hit. Now instead of being a bold architectural statement, its become more a lasting display of our current economic situation. It now objectifies grand dreams that were doomed to go unrealized.

At the very least, though, I wish they would have scaled back to this concept:http://www.emporis.com/images/6/2004/01/239122.jpg
It carries the design of the parking structure up to the top of the tower and creates a great sort of synergy between the way the tower touches the ground and and sky.
Posted by: joe | May 11, 2009 11:39:24 AM "

I don't see anything wrong with the spiral on top of the building. In the contrary, I think it is rather appropriate and perfectly fitting with the structure. I suppose it all comes down to a matter of personal and subjective preference.

Another bad taste from Donald to be left in our mouths until someone can find the monety to tear the whole thing down. Who ever among our city officials approved this eyesore for the beautiful Chicago riverfront should be tarred, feathered and run out of town. Daniel Burnham must be turning over in his grave. The spire is a fitting top to the most ugly addition to our skyline ever.

if this article hadn't mentioned it i think absolutely no one would have thought anything about it...i do however, like the syringe comment, i also like the building, spire and all....they had very very little ground space to build on too and i think they did well with what they had...looking at this building from the east down the chicago river is spectacular...by the way, why is everyone so down on trump ?

It's not so much the "size" (though the spire's length probably should have been 3 feet longer). It's the fact that it is lackluster in appearance. The tower shimmers, yet the spire looks like a plastic gray chopstick. Simple cost saving measures could include white or steel blue lighting at it's base, or simply just paint the spire silvery blue or silver so that it glistens in the sun.

New Yorkers HATED the World Trade Centers when they were initially built. The pundits said it conflicted too much with the more traditional Lower Manhattan skyline...Thereafter, who wouldn't want to have their picture taken on the Brooklyn side of the East River w/the WTC towers as a back drop??? Rock Stars, politicians, "Joe Six Pack" jocks...all number of personalities. Anybody would love to have the WTC's still standing...myself included. I shot many cool pix at the WTC, attended a fantastic wedding reception at the Windows on the World, etc

To Mr. Trump...let the scribes beat this up for awhile. After long, Chicagoan's will take ownership of it as though they agreed with it all along. Congratulations on building the ENTIRE structure at all, given the economic climate. Could you just lower the price of martini's in the cocktail lounge???!!

Wow, Mr. Kamin. The Daley supporters are out in force on this one. Without getting into a rant on the Fifth Floor as I am tempted to, I will wonder aloud if those arguing with you about his role in this (and, make no mistake, his role had to be significant) have an understanding of how things work on LaSalle St. "between the lines." As for the spire, I agree with danimal's point, which was while it looks tacked on, it isn't the end of the world. I still think the building looks very nice even with this flaw, and look forward to your own review. I feel the same way about Kuala Lampur's Petronas twins: Nice-looking buildings, with tacked-on spires that served no purpose but to unseat Sears--which, as mentioned, at least has useful sticks on its roof.

Back to Trump, I wonder a bit if the man ordered it this way to spite M. Daley and his demand for a spire. Certainly that seems too emotional for most businesspersons, but seeing as this is The Donald we're talking about, I wouldn't put it past him. Anyway, I again echo the sentiments expressed already that it would be nice if it is at least lit up.

The spire? It's OK. Maybe it could have been a bit bigger, like the spires on the Sears and Hancock. The building? Beautiful! A very lovely addition to the Chicago skyline. What's REALLY BAD about the Trump Tower is the crummy, over-priced restaurant on floor 16 and the cocktail lounge on 2nd floor. Both beautifully designed, but the food is terrible! Now that's somthin' to be REALLY bugged about, not so much a silly spire!

I actually think the building would have been much better without a spire at all. I looked at some of the other proposed options, which while interesting, I think all detract from the building itself. If it were just the building and the way it reflects light at different times of day, it is a piece of art.

I like the effect the building has on our skyline and the sprire (in its current form or another) just muddy the picture unnecessarily. It's a striking addition to our skyline and I would have saved the money on the spire and spent it on a new name.

Talked about an uninspired spire!
When one thinks of grand sjkyscrapers one thinks of the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building, the Petronus Towers, etc, etc; this... pencil-thin nothing on top of an already lack-luster structure is simply too... boring for the city of broad shoulders, makers of no small plans, etc.

Trump's spire looks great from all angles I have seen it at. Simple and decorative which was the point. If you want to see spires like on the Sears Tower or John Hancock, look at them, that wasn't the point for Trump's spire.

I actually agree with "PJL"'s post that the building didn't even need a spire to complete it, and the money would be best used to change the name! The spire neither adds nor detracts from the building, which IS a great looking building, by the way, but I just hate that Trump has his name and footprint in Chicago.

Why? Why on Earth would the rich want to live in a building that's known for a egotistical man with horrible taste in architecture and life? Why? That's all I'm asking. The spire looks horrible. I can't wait until the REAL Spire is built... the Chicago Spire!

I don't know if Daley can be blamed. Yes, he said put the spire atop the tower after Trump toyed with the notion of not having one, but that's where his responsibility ends. This issue of foreshortening should have been realized during the modeling and rendering phase of the project. The designers are to blame for this one. I don't even know how much blame I'd but on Trump himself, because if anyone here knows anything, it's that his taste is quite limited to the gawdy. I mean this could have been a gold glass building if he were listened to.

I'm actually suprised that people are suprised at how the spire looks on the tower. It's kind of funny to see and hear the reactions. I mean really, the spire came out basically exactly as the renderings have depicted, so there shouldn't be any suprise. I don't reacall reading that it was too short and skinny when the final renderings were released. Where was the criticism then? I remember hearing more grumbling about the Michigan Avenue advertising kiosk.

Yes, the color of the spire is dull, but has the connection been made as to how the color of the (pinnacle) spire seems to match the color of the column wrapping at the base?

This tower would "absolutely NOT" have looked better without the spire. Then people would have been complaining that there should have been a spire because of the abrupt termination. A slightly bulkier and taller spire I can agree with. This tower without a spire at all would have looked stubby.

BK: The spire actually looks thinner than in the renderings. Adrian Smith says that the spire would have looked a bit thicker--and certainly more luminous--if the fins had not been value-engineered out of the project.

The problem with this public process on this tower was that is was so closed, especially compared to the Chicago Spire's process. We never saw distant renderings, so there was little chance to grasp how the tower would look from afar. This failure demands a more open public process in the future.

Well ok, BK, I see your point. Chicago politics is a different animal. The King has spoken, therefore all must bow down. Even The Donald is no match for his majesty in all his glory.

Huh? What is this? You ask what planet I am living on; meanwhile, Chicago is apparently stuck in the past of feudalism. But, for the sake of the discussion, lets just say that yes, in fact, I do live on a different planet - we are more sensible down here in the land known as Missouri and do not border on egotism. It is good, however, that I did live in Chicago for four years, thus enabling a direct comparison of the two.

A cop-out relative to the city not being the design police? Hardly. I can't let you off the hook that easily by now saying 'case closed' with a statement like that. To make such a claim shows lack of perspective relative to due process. Instead, focus on the root of the issue, i.e. squarely on the cost-cutting by the designers, and not the public employees, Daley-associated or not. Public employees (reminder: I am one of them) can only do so much within the heavily structured framework that we are required to operate within. If a developer does not want to pay to put something on their building that we think looks "pretty", then building departments themselves cannot force arbitrary compliance. There absolutely must be some legal requirement otherwise. This isn't communism we're talking about here. I don't recall of The Donald or the city going to court over the spire.

Also, the purpose of a PUD is to determine land use and organization, not singular architectural elements. If the latter were true, there would most certainly be an infinite number of civil cases filed against municipalities. I cringe at the thought, and surely taxpayers who then have to shoulder the associated cost burden would, too

Sparky is spot on. An approved PD is not the same thing as design review. There's simply no legal basis in Chicago for the city to control nonfunctional design elements. If Trump had decided to spell out his name in gold reflective windows, the city would have been powerless to stop him.

On the other hand, you had a chance to see the renderings and a close-up view of the spire under construction every workday. Yet you took potshots at Neil Steinberg for noting in early April that it was too skinny.

BK: Dennis--you just don't get journalism, do you?
I don't review buildings until they're done. So of course I hammered Steinberg. He was commenting on an incomplete building. If that's what you want, then you want to degrade the standards of architecture criticisim.

As for the renderings, I did see them beforehand, but they told an incomplete story. They only showed limited perspectives--none of the fly-throughs we saw with Calatrava, for example. I'm surprised that you don't appreciate the merits a transparent process, which this assuredly was not.

Finally, with regard to PUDs and design review, there is the theory of the way things work at City Hall and there is the reality. Daley ordered Trump to place a spire on the building. Given the importance of this buildings to the skyline, he and his aides also could have "encouraged" Trump to do better than he did. It's pitiful from certain vantage points. I was on the West Side today looking at that spire and I could barely see it--it's so skinny.

A spire? it's a flagless flagpole that does not rise to the standards of the rest of the building. A major disappointment. It should be clad in stainless steel and rise at least another 50 feet. It is Trump's way of expressing his contempt for the city for making him build a spire in the first place. I guess he gets the last laugh. What an ego!

Loyd Jones - I'd like to follow-up to your comment that the building was empty. I couldn't agree more!

I was very seriously considering purchasing a unit in the building until I did my dilligence and called the Sales Center (last month). I spoke with the Sales Center, and although they are 70% sold only 30% have closed. Additionally, they only sold five units in Q1 - at that rate it would take them over seven years to sell the remaining units (145 units - assuming the remaining 40% that have yet to close, close which is an optimistic assumption).

Given the current state of the economy and the plethora of units, I worry about the financial stability of the building. The developer could be forced to auction units or Deutsche Bank could call the loan and foreclose the units. That being said, the purchase price of units could decline significantly over the next 2 - 3 years.

Additionally, the commercial banks are aware of this situation and are requiring a 25% down payment for this specific property.

Although I love the units -- I can't afford the downside risks associated with the property.